Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > BTW, it's odd for you to at all "hack" me, of all people, about brand > > loyalty. I have none, my loyalty is to good cameras, not camera > brands...as > > I have Contax, Leica, Canon, Hasselblad, Rollei (both TLR and MF SLR), > > Plaubel...to start the list. No, I really have no brand loyalty, but I > > simply am able to acknowledge an exceptional camera. > > > > Austin > > What you are missing is that the ND is an inferior product. When it was introduced, name a product in it's category it was inferior to? No one else offered a full frame digital camera, Contax was the first. It MAY be an inferior product to the highEST end offerings available now, but so is my $6k 486/25 notebook, and my $4.5k P133 notebook... So what? It still, today, produces exceptional images, whether it's inferior or not to any other product. And...it will, providing it still works in ten years, produce exceptional images. > I can't fathom > except for product loyalty why you defend it. Yeah, but I have no product loyalty. I admire the product, that is why I defend it, and your bashing of it is unfounded and unwarranted. > Of course you can take good > photos with it, the ND uses Zeiss glass. But this does not mean > it's a good > product. Sure it does. > But by any measure of cost to performance, its performance > compared to the performance of its competition (Canon 1D) it is woefully > outclassed, an inferior product in a very unforgiving marketplace. Oh, I see...the Canon 1Ds was out when the Contax N Digital was? I wasn't aware of that. I was only aware of the Canon D-30 being out at the introduction of the N Digital...and after the release of the N Digital the D-60 came out...and some, nearly 18 months later, the D1s... > But > don't take my word for it. The marketplace has spoken, and the ND is for > all intents and purposes dead. So what? That still has no bearing what so ever on it's status as an exceptional camera. By your definition, a Ferrari BB512 was a failure. > I took this position BEFORE the ND camera was > introduced. It's based on a deeply flawed model, which means > it's a deeply > flawed product. Well, to put it bluntly, bullshit. > Not even Nikon has been able to hold its position in the > marketplace with an inferior high end digital product Well, thousands of photographers are using Nikon digital cameras, and they seem to be doing well with them. > (many Nikon loyalist > pros have moved to Canon, at one time unthinkable) True, but that is for other reasons, like Nikon service is arrogant and unresponsive and unreasonable. > Contax does not have > anywhere near the user base that Nikon has, so what's to prevent > the ND from > sinking the Contax ship? Obviously, you have no clue about product development. I do. I've been developing quite complicated electronic products for, oh, 25 years. This is Contax's first digital SLR. It's bound to have problems. In fact, I'd say they did an exceptional job, as it really had few problems for how complex it is. You would not understand that though. Even autofocus went through this problem cycle, which is typical of a FIRST revision product. > Again, the only thing exceptional about the ND is how poorly it has been > received and how much the investment in it has evaporated in such a short > period of time. That's idiotic. EVERY digital camera has lost it's "investment" in such a short period of time, this has nothing to do with Contax. You are obviously searching for ways to make Contax a villain. Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html